Hi,
> I think at this point we would be better off trying to recruit at least one
> person to "own" each package. For new packages that is usually the person
> who committed it but we also need ownership of older packages. Someone with
> a personal stake in a package is likely to do more for quality assurance at
> this point than any amount of required review.
I would hesitate to make the model as strong as "ownership". Maybe
"curator"? I don't mean to play with semantics but the choice of
language for the model will be important in giving the right
impression to new and/or timid users/contributors (myself included)
who don't need to be put off getting involved because of perceived
responsibilities. Ownership suggests a strict hierarchy, and potential
curators will be less likely to get involved if the workflow model
labels them "owners." Also, this perception also enables non-owners
(who might perceive themselves as unqualified to help) to justify
leaving the poor blighters to do everything by themselves.
I don't want to have the responsibility of "owning" anything about the
existing code for ODE solving (and maybe some other numerical
methods), even though I have some stake in it. But I'll happily share
in some of the reviewing and possibly testing of changes and
improvements to that code.
So, can't there be informal teams of curatorship so that not everyone
involved has to be really familiar with the tools discussed in the
other thread?! Unfortunately I cannot afford the time to ride the
waves of changing fashion in VCS, etc.
Wouldn't this help to get more people involved? ... those many people
that Gael correctly assumes are out there but staying silent!
-Rob